Somehow, America told herself “diversity” made her great. Not only is this not true, the people who say it don’t know what it means.
Of course America was “built” by immigrants from many shores. Many languages, cultures, religions came together and poof! America. First diverse cultures, then a “great” nation.
What do they even mean by “great”, or its synonyms? Since “great” presumably means something more than just large, it must mean rich, or strong, or both. So: the multiplicity of cultures made us economically prosperous? Militarily strong? How? Why would the same result not have happened in a homogenous culture?
“Diversity” also is ambiguous. Many say “diversity” when they mean something like “suffused with open homosexuality”, or “easy to be an atheist”, or “a large menu of self-esteem systems”. If that’s what you mean, fine, but that’s not what “diversity” can possibly mean when we refer to the 19th century. You just use the same word; you’re not talking about history at all.
But back to the 19th century. Truth is, there was no particular economic or military value added by German, Irish, English, or African culture. We’ve forgotten the wisdom of an earlier generation, who always talked of a “melting pot” when they talked of that time in our history. Have you noticed the phrase “melting pot” has become a little embarrassing, like a quaint idea from an unsophisticated age? I heard it routinely in elementary school, 40 years ago, but no politically correct pundit would ever be caught on tape saying it now. The phrase was no peripheral part of America’s understanding of herself. The important point about that age was not the diversity, but precisely the opposite: it melted away. The loss of diversity over time, understandably lamented from within those communities, was the unique historical pattern, and the indirect key to our greatness.
I say “indirect” because loss of cultural identity was simply a result of the focus of life shifting elsewhere. The distinct cultures were not a bad thing, of course, and even a cultural good, but the force of economic opportunity overwhelmed any nostalgia.
As I say, there was value in those cultures as cultures. But they entered a political and economic system that was already built, and fitting into that system overcame their love of their culture over generations. What was the solvent? Freedom. The heady air of political freedom, economic freedom. Commerce. The freedom to work hard and stockpile assets — capitalism — is the solvent of cultures. You need to transcend your ghetto’s language and manners to extend your business. And the opportunity to extend a business by hard work — as opposed to bribery or warlord allegiance — should not be underestimated. Few times in history has property been secure enough to stockpile, and our forefathers created that here, and it is a melting pot. There is tragedy in this, of course, but it is an economic and historical law.
These days, immigration has entered the same logic in the place of “diversity”. We need immigrants, because diversity makes us great. Nonsense, nonsense resurrected.
There is no value to the country as a whole to have more Mexican culture. (Or any other kind.) We do not need diversity. We need freedom, and let people choose their own diversity. Let them be whatever color (culturally speaking) they want.
Where was the tipping point? Where, in our history, did the State take on the role of protecting or promoting cultural diversity? (As opposed to protecting private property.)
That tipping point is the apex of the curve of America’s greatness.
TimothyOne 